A great set of example stories as to how the world really works. One can put the vast majority of these cases down to human nature itself, and what people often do when they are in a position to carry out atrocities and crimes, and they are unlikely to be suspected/busted. The "unlikely to be busted" factor, regardless of country, is because authority tends to look after itself, the mass media protects authority, and the general public thus trusts authority. (That's somewhat of an oversimplification for sure, but whatever).
.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

That's ridiculous. So you're saying that no politician ever says anything that is true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo

...One stage under an ad hominem...

Hmm, you start your post saying perhaps you should explain what you mean better(I'm still not convinced it needs further explanation to be confirmed to be as I understood it; wrong. But whatever), then go on to throw in that gem!??

'One stage under ad hominem'; Now IIRC ad hominem is an argument where the premis of the argument is based on the my thoughts of the personal character of the person I'm arguing against rather than just fact... so yeah, I guess your right here; my argument is based one stage under that; it's not your character I'm basing my argument on, just the facts and logic, and therefore we're all in agreeance I guess: You don't know what you're talking about.

That's ridiculous. So you're saying that no politician ever says anything that is true.

At least they never tell the full truth. Politicians, espescially those in a government carefully choose what truth to reveal, what truth to ignore, what truth to hide and what truth to deny.

The case of Megrahi is an explosive one, the case against him was based on circumstantial evidence and two doubtful and even as became clear later bribed witnesses.

I think Megrahi was innocent, the Lockerbie-bombing probably got conducted by Iran using some guerillia-group to carry it out as a retaliation for the shooting down of an iranian civilian airliner by the US-navy.

Back then it was though inconvenient to directly confront Iran, and so the blame was laid on Lybia, the archenemy of Reagan, the rest is history.

Megrahi always claimed his innocence and a scottish juridiscial commission examined for four years the case and came to the conclusion that there were separate grounds for a possible miscarriage of justice and that an appeal-court should take to it.

It's probable that in order to prevent the release of Megrahi due to a miscarriage of justice, a situation that would have put western powers into a doubtful light, bringing to light the bribing-mechanics of the CIA and torpedating the Lybia-Lockerbie-compensation-deal, Megrahi received the offer to be let free on compassion-ground if he agreed to let go of the appeal-process, which he unsurprisingly did.

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?

In a submission to the Court of Appeal running to thousands of words, Megrahi’s lawyers list 20 grounds of appeal which include:

Details of a catalogue of deliberately undisclosed evidence at the original trial.
Allegations of ‘tampering’ with evidence.
A summary of how American intelligence agencies were convinced that Iran, not Libya, was involved but that their reports were not open to the 2001 trial.

Christine Grahame, a member of the Scottish Parliament, told The Times: 'There are a number of vested interests who have been deeply opposed to this appeal because they know it would go a considerable way towards exposing the truth behind Lockerbie.'

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died, also believes Al Megrahi is innocent. He said: 'I am someone who does not believe he is guilty. The sooner he is back with his family, the better. Everything points to a miscarriage of justice in the case.

There are two versions of the Lockerbie story. One - told at the trial - is neat, clearcut and, ultimately, reassuring. The other, which we believe is the true story, is far less comfortable. In the official version it was bad guys against good: Muammar Gadafy and his recently convicted henchman Abdel Baset al-Megrahi versus the heroic international investigation led by the tiny Dumfries and Galloway police force. It ends with the triumph of justice over terror. In the alternative version the heroics of the cops are obscured by dirty politics. It ends with a dreadful miscarriage of justice.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

It must feel great to have the law work for you when it's worked against you for so, so long.

Obviously his health could have deteriorated and therefore three months may have been a legitimate analysis. It does point to the fact that the law can be misused when someone or some people have a reason to manipulate it, as so plainly happened to Megrahi and indeed Libya.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

I wonder how far his disease had gone? Maybe the three month estimate was for the NHS and not the better care he'll receive in Libya.

Hmmm universal healthcare, which country has 47,000,000 uninsured-

"Under the revolutionary leadership of Col. Mu`ammar Qadhafi, Libya has attained the highest standard of living in all of Africa. This is all the more remarkable when we consider that in 1951 Libya was officially the poorest country in the world. According to the World Bank, the per capita income was less than $50 a year - even lower than India. Today all Libyans own their own homes and cars. In the words of two Fleet Street journalists, David Blundy and Andrew Lycett, who are by no means supporters of the Libyan Arab revolution, "The young people are well dressed, well fed and well educated. Libyans now earn more per capita than the British. The disparity in annual incomes... is smaller than in most countries. Libya's wealth has been fairly spread throughout society. Every Libyan has a job and a decent salary. He gets free, and often excellent, education, medical and health services. New colleges and hospitals are impressive by any international standard. All Libyans have a house or a flat, a car and most have televisions, video recorders and telephones. Compared with most citizens of the Third World countries, and with many in the First World, Libyans have it very good indeed." ~ (Source: QADDAFI AND THE LIBYAN REVOLUTION)
~ http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/libfacts.htm

"Basic health care is provided to all citizens. Health, training, rehabilitation, education, housing, family issues, and disability and old-age benefits are all regulated by Decision No. 111 (dated December 9, 1999) of the General Peoples Committee on the Promulgation of the By-Law Enforcement Law No. 20 of 1998 on the Social Care Fund. The health care system is not purely state-run but rather a mixed system of public and private care. In comparison to other states in the Middle East, the health status of the population is relatively good. Childhood immunization is almost universal. The clean water supply has increased, and sanitation has been improved. The countrys major hospitals are in Tripoli and Benghazi, and private health clinics and diagnostic centers, offering newer equipment and better service, compete with the public sector. However, if they can afford it, many Libyans nonetheless travel to either Tunisia or Europe if they need sophisticated medical treatment."
~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Libya

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

"Under the revolutionary leadership of Col. Mu`ammar Qadhafi, Libya has attained the highest standard of living in all of Africa. This is all the more remarkable when we consider that in 1951 Libya was officially the poorest country in the world. According to the World Bank, the per capita income was less than $50 a year - even lower than India. Today all Libyans own their own homes and cars. In the words of two Fleet Street journalists, David Blundy and Andrew Lycett, who are by no means supporters of the Libyan Arab revolution, "The young people are well dressed, well fed and well educated. Libyans now earn more per capita than the British. The disparity in annual incomes... is smaller than in most countries. Libya's wealth has been fairly spread throughout society. Every Libyan has a job and a decent salary. He gets free, and often excellent, education, medical and health services. New colleges and hospitals are impressive by any international standard. All Libyans have a house or a flat, a car and most have televisions, video recorders and telephones. Compared with most citizens of the Third World countries, and with many in the First World, Libyans have it very good indeed." ~ (Source: QADDAFI AND THE LIBYAN REVOLUTION)
~ http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8744/libfacts.htm

"Basic health care is provided to all citizens. Health, training, rehabilitation, education, housing, family issues, and disability and old-age benefits are all regulated by Decision No. 111 (dated December 9, 1999) of the General Peoples Committee on the Promulgation of the By-Law Enforcement Law No. 20 of 1998 on the Social Care Fund. The health care system is not purely state-run but rather a mixed system of public and private care. In comparison to other states in the Middle East, the health status of the population is relatively good. Childhood immunization is almost universal. The clean water supply has increased, and sanitation has been improved. The countrys major hospitals are in Tripoli and Benghazi, and private health clinics and diagnostic centers, offering newer equipment and better service, compete with the public sector. However, if they can afford it, many Libyans nonetheless travel to either Tunisia or Europe if they need sophisticated medical treatment."
~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Libya

sounds like we should all just go to cuba or libya i'll just suffer and stay here

In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.

Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

There's clearly room for error in a system that seems to be trying to do it's best to avoid it. I would much prefer if doctors used more of their own discretion, as I'm sure many doctors do. However, having guidelines in place are meant to presumably lead to less adverse cases not more.

What happens in the US? Certainly these difficult decisions are made too and there are bound to be some questionable decisions made.

This from the Journal of the American Medical Association-

"Conclusions.— Intractable pain or poor physical functioning seem to be nearly absolute requirements for physicians to perform euthanasia or PAS. Only one third of cases are performed consistently with proposed safeguards. For some patients, end-of-life care that includes opioid analgesia and hospice care does not obviate their desire for euthanasia or PAS. While the majority of physicians seem comforted by their actions, some experience adverse consequences from having performed euthanasia or PAS.

Results.— A total of 355 oncologists (72.6% response rate) were interviewed on euthanasia and PAS. On 2 screening questions, 56 oncologists (15.8%) reported participating in euthanasia or PAS; 53 oncologists (94.6% response rate) participated in in-depth interviews. Thirty-eight of 53 oncologists described clearly defined cases of euthanasia or PAS. Twenty-three patients (60.5%) both initiated and repeated their request for euthanasia or PAS, but 6 patients (15.8%) did not participate in the decision for euthanasia or PAS. Thirty-seven patients (97.4%) were experiencing unremitting pain or such poor physical functioning they could not perform self-care. Physicians sought consultation in 15 cases (39.5%). Overall, oncologists adhered to all 3 main safeguards in 13 cases (34.2%): (1) having the patient initiate and repeat the request for euthanasia or PAS, (2) ensuring the patient was experiencing extreme physical pain or suffering, and (3) consulting with a colleague. Those who adhered to the safeguards had known their patients longer and tended to be more religious. In 28 cases (73.7%), the family supported the decision. In all cases of pain, patients were receiving narcotic analgesia. Fifteen patients (39.5%) were enrolled in a hospice. While 19 oncologists (52.6%) received comfort from having helped a patient with euthanasia or PAS, 9 (23.7%) regretted having performed euthanasia or PAS, and 15 (39.5%) feared prosecution."
~ http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/280/6/507

Note that 40% of the doctors feared prosecution!

From one of the articles linked to at that same site a study states that the US has problems and critically from those un/under insured patients-

"Results: Within all components of care at the end-of-life-societal attitudes, health care system(s), providers, and patients and their families — there are significant barriers to the quality of care. Some of the most critical barriers to optimal care at the endof-life in the USA are limited availability, and coverage of, co-ordinated service delivery; poor provider communication and diagnostic skills; limited opportunities for training in palliative care; patient fears and attitudes towards the sick role, and a lack of, or inadequate health insurance."
~ http://pmj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/202

You have to wonder how the un/under insured are impacted.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

There's clearly room for error in a system that seems to be trying to do it's best to avoid it. I would much prefer if doctors used more of their own discretion, as I'm sure many doctors do. However, having guidelines in place are meant to presumably lead to less adverse cases not more.

What happens in the US? Certainly these difficult decisions are made too and there are bound to be some questionable decisions made.

This from the Journal of the American Medical Association-

"Conclusions. Intractable pain or poor physical functioning seem to be nearly absolute requirements for physicians to perform euthanasia or PAS. Only one third of cases are performed consistently with proposed safeguards. For some patients, end-of-life care that includes opioid analgesia and hospice care does not obviate their desire for euthanasia or PAS. While the majority of physicians seem comforted by their actions, some experience adverse consequences from having performed euthanasia or PAS.

Results. A total of 355 oncologists (72.6% response rate) were interviewed on euthanasia and PAS. On 2 screening questions, 56 oncologists (15.8%) reported participating in euthanasia or PAS; 53 oncologists (94.6% response rate) participated in in-depth interviews. Thirty-eight of 53 oncologists described clearly defined cases of euthanasia or PAS. Twenty-three patients (60.5%) both initiated and repeated their request for euthanasia or PAS, but 6 patients (15.8%) did not participate in the decision for euthanasia or PAS. Thirty-seven patients (97.4%) were experiencing unremitting pain or such poor physical functioning they could not perform self-care. Physicians sought consultation in 15 cases (39.5%). Overall, oncologists adhered to all 3 main safeguards in 13 cases (34.2%): (1) having the patient initiate and repeat the request for euthanasia or PAS, (2) ensuring the patient was experiencing extreme physical pain or suffering, and (3) consulting with a colleague. Those who adhered to the safeguards had known their patients longer and tended to be more religious. In 28 cases (73.7%), the family supported the decision. In all cases of pain, patients were receiving narcotic analgesia. Fifteen patients (39.5%) were enrolled in a hospice. While 19 oncologists (52.6%) received comfort from having helped a patient with euthanasia or PAS, 9 (23.7%) regretted having performed euthanasia or PAS, and 15 (39.5%) feared prosecution."
~ http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/280/6/507

Note that 40% of the doctors feared prosecution!

From one of the articles linked to at that same site a study states that the US has problems and critically from those un/under insured patients-

"Results: Within all components of care at the end-of-life-societal attitudes, health care system(s), providers, and patients and their families there are significant barriers to the quality of care. Some of the most critical barriers to optimal care at the endof-life in the USA are limited availability, and coverage of, co-ordinated service delivery; poor provider communication and diagnostic skills; limited opportunities for training in palliative care; patient fears and attitudes towards the sick role, and a lack of, or inadequate health insurance."
~ http://pmj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/3/202

You have to wonder how the un/under insured are impacted.

under insured
how did this discussion come to this
this person was released early because people making the determination were paid off, he should have as much compassion as her provided the victims......NONE

under insured
how did this discussion come to this
this person was released early because people making the determination were paid off, he should have as much compassion as her provided the victims......NONE

You could of read the posts then you'd know, but hey why bother, better to just complain.

Under Scottish Law he will be released to die so long as he's not considered a threat. The doctors don't make that decision, only that he has only a few months to live.

If we didn't show compassion for criminals we'd be no better than them at their worst.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

I agree. It's just 'more' compassionate to let them spend their dying weeks outside of a prison, especially than in solitary confinement as Megrahi was.

Ignoring the whole debate over whether he was setup or not and making an assumption that he was guilty, would you still feel the same way? That he needs to be shown "More Compassion" than he showed his victims?

I actually can see some good that can come of this, except for it undermining the whole point of a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Nobody would ever serve it as everyone has to eventually die. So it becomes a "most of your life" sentence, with time off for death?

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Ignoring the whole debate over whether he was setup or not and making an assumption that he was guilty, would you still feel the same way? That he needs to be shown "More Compassion" than he showed his victims?

Yes. I believe these individuals from a direct response to their crimes necessitate greater compassion from us otherwise we become irrational and that thwarts humane goals. I see it as as our duty to one another to establish what is humane in any efforts pertaining to justice. We should never allow the standards of the criminal to dictate the standards of the punishment.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Yes. I believe these individuals from a direct response to their crimes necessitate greater compassion from us otherwise we become irrational and that thwarts humane goals. I see it as as our duty to one another to establish what is humane in any efforts pertaining to justice. We should never allow the standards of the criminal to dictate the standards of the punishment.

Noble, it will likely never be instituted, but it would be a very noble gesture indeed.

Too many people want to get their vengeance for the evil act that was committed. Things have to be "fair", and letting a criminal with a life sentence out of prison because they might be dying does not ring fair to the victims who died.

While that is what I see people wanting I agree that we have a duty to be better than the criminals that we lock up. I only fear that the good you show them would easily be used against you by those who are not in the least repentant for what they have done.

There are those who may want to get their last bit of vengeance before they actually do die. If they are going to die anyhow, what is to prevent them from a suicide (homicide) bombing or some other self ending gesture that also harms many others around them? Only one possibility of things that could happen.

The other possibility, they could be released and die in peace, surrounded by people of their choosing. I am fine with the second scenario, the first scenario is not ok with me at all.

The question is, with the possibilities laid out above, are you ok regardless of which way it goes?

To be fully clear, I have not made up my mind, I am however interested in the opinions of others who have, I hope, already considered these possibilities and come to their own conclusions.

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

The question is, with the possibilities laid out above, are you ok regardless of which way it goes?

No, obviously I would not be. The prisoner should not be released if there are concerns that they will commit more crimes. In Scotland that is how it works and to the best of my knowledge no prisoner has ever committed an offense after being released to die.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

The documents published online by Megrahi's lawyers today show that the US Department of Justice (DoJ) was asked to pay $2m to Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who gave crucial evidence at the trial suggesting that Megrahi had bought clothes later used in the suitcase that allegedly held the Lockerbie bomb.

The DoJ was also asked to pay a further $1m to his brother, Paul Gauci, who did not give evidence but played a major role in identifying the clothing and in "maintaining the resolve of his brother". The DoJ said their rewards could be increased and that the brothers were also eligible for the US witness protection programme, according to the documents.

The sole (and utterly unreliable) "witness" that resulted in Megrahi's phony conviction was bribed by the US government. They wanted to get this case cleared up ASAP, placate the public and get this lying sack of shit "witness" away (he now lives in Australia) from public attention and difficult questions.

It's blindingly obvious this guy was railroaded. It remains to be discovered who the real fucking terrorists are in this case.

I love my country. I hold its government in utter contempt and disgust.

What's new.

What's new.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

The sole (and utterly unreliable) "witness" that resulted in Megrahi's phony conviction was bribed by the US government. They wanted to get this case cleared up ASAP, placate the public and get this lying sack of shit "witness" away (he now lives in Australia) from public attention and difficult questions.

It's blindingly obvious this guy was railroaded. It remains to be discovered who the real fucking terrorists are in this case.

I love my country. I hold its government in utter contempt and disgust.

What's new.

What's new.

I think you should write a book and go on TV with all your evidence. I'd like to see the reaction you get from folks when you try to impugn the court rulings with your accusations of impropriety because of allegations that a reward was made for evidence that led to the conviction of al-Megrahi. If it's so "blindingly obvious" you shouldn't have a problem with it. Then again, it seems you see things no one else sees... or al-Megrahi wouldn't have been convicted.

I think you should write a book and go on TV with all your evidence. I'd like to see the reaction you get from folks when you try to impugn the court rulings with your accusations of impropriety because of allegations that a reward was made for evidence that led to the conviction of al-Megrahi. If it's so "blindingly obvious" you shouldn't have a problem with it. Then again, it seems you see things no one else sees... or al-Megrahi wouldn't have been convicted.

I hope that "utter contempt and disgust" is working for you.

And that utter contempt and disgust extends to those who not only condone and support state sponsored terrorism, but those who remain silent about it and pretends it doesn't happen.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

The statements from Tony Gauci were so full of inaccuracies, inconsistencies and blatantly untrue material that he should have been thrown off the witness stand right away. If the standard of a regular court was applied, he would have been considered an unreliable witness and his testimony excluded as evidence in determining guilt or innocence. This was no normal court however. In the minds of those 3 judges, Megrahi was guilty even if he was innocent. There was a clear political mandate to arrive at that preordained verdict. Think about what might have happened if a "not guilty, or "unproven" verdict had been reached? Such an eventuality was written out of the "trial".

Quote:

Beyond reasonable doubt?

The prosecution case, and the judges' verdict, rested fundamentally on two points: it was Megrahi who purchased the clothes which were packed into the suitcase that contained the bomb, and that suitcase began its fateful journey in Malta rather than either Frankfurt airport or at Heathrow.

Yet, Megrahi was never positively identified as the man who purchased the clothing, the prosecution did not provide any physical or documentary evidence to link Megrahi to the suitcase or the bomb components, and no evidence was offered to prove that the suitcase began its journey in Malta, let alone that it was Megrahi who sent it on its way.

The guilty verdict hinged most on the testimony of Tony Gauci, the owner of the clothes shop in Malta. In their judgement, the judges stated: We are nevertheless satisfied that his identification so far as it went of the first accused as the purchaser was reliable and should be treated as a highly important element in this case.

In their verdict, the judges described the torturous path Gauci's identification of Megrahi had taken. The shopkeeper was first interviewed by police on September 1, 1989, and described the purchaser as being six feet or more in height and well-built. On September 13, he told police the man was about 50 years old.

Megrahi is five feet, eight inches tall, of medium-build and was 36-years-old in December 1988.

On September 14, 1989, Gauci was shown 19 photos and identified a man as being similar to the purchaser but added that the purchaser was 20 years older. The man's photo who was not Megrahi was included because police thought he resembled an artist's impression and an identikit portrait based on Gauci's description.

On September 26, 1989, Gauci viewed more photos and pointed out another man included at the suggestion of German police. On August 31, 1990, Gauci was shown 24 photos and pointed out a man who, he said, had a face with a similar shape and style of hair to the purchaser. It was not Megrahi.

On December 6, 1989, and again on September 10, 1990, Gauci was shown photos but did not identify anybody. Included both times were photos of Abo Talb, a Palestinian jailed in Sweden in 1989 for terrorist bombings. Yet, Gauci told the court that in late 1989 or early 1990 his brother had shown him a newspaper article about the Lockerbie disaster which included a photo of a man with the word bomber printed across it. Gauci said he thought it was the man that bought the articles from him or that it resembled the person who bought the clothes from him. The man was Abo Talb.

On February 15, 1991, police showed Gauci 12 photos. Gauci told police that all the men in the photos were younger than the purchaser. The police pressed Gauci to allow for any age difference and look again. He pointed to a photo and said the man resembles the man who bought the clothing ... of all the photographs I have been shown, this photograph 8 is the only one really similar to the man who bought the clothing, if he is a bit older, other than the one my brother showed me [of Abo Talb]. Photograph 8 was Megrahi's 1986 passport photo.

Towards the end of 1998 or the beginning of 1999, Gauci approached police after he was shown a magazine article about the Lockerbie disaster which named Megrahi as a suspect. He told police that the photo of Megrahi in the article looks like the man he sold clothes to.

On August 13, Gauci picked out Megrahi from an identification parade with the words: Not exactly the man I saw in the shop. Ten years ago I saw him, but the man who look a little bit like exactly [sic] is number 5. At the trial, Gauci pointed to Megrahi and said he resembles him a lot.

The defence lawyers protested that Gauci's eventual, less than positive identification of Megrahi had taken place after the defendant's photo had been in the world news for years.

In their verdict, the judges admitted that Gauci never made what could be described as an absolutely positive identification. The judges defended their assessment of Gauci's identification with the incredible statement that, There are situations where a careful witness who will not commit himself beyond saying that there is a close resemblance can be regarded as more reliable and convincing in his identification than a witness who maintains that his identification is 100% certain.

Gauci was also unclear as to when the items were purchased. On the witness stand, he agreed the date was either November 23 or December 7, 1988. The prosecution insisted it was December 7 and in the verdict, the judges did too.

However, in his statements to police and in his testimony at the trial Gauci said that it had been, or was, raining when the purchaser entered the shop. The nearby Luqa airport's chief meteorologist testified that it did not rain on December 7, but did so on November 23.

Interestingly, before the indictment of the two Libyans, the press reported that the police had stated that the clothing had been purchased on November 23.

Why is this important? First, because Megrahi was in Malta on December 7 but investigators could find no evidence that he was there on November 23, and second, because Abo Talb, who Gauci first identified as the purchaser, might have been. Talb had visited Malta from Sweden in late October 1988. When he left on October 26, he flew to Sweden on a return ticket valid for one month, raising the possibility could have returned.

Talb, who testified at the Lockerbie trial, could only prove he was in Sweden until November 10 and most of December, including on December 7. Talb presented no evidence to prove he was in Sweden after November 10 and before December 5. It is therefore possible that Talb entered Gauci's shop on November 23.

This was a kangaroo trial dressed up and disguised in technical legalese to make it appear genuine. Bogus.

We the public deserve an honest complete review of the facts with scientific interpretation and implications as to what really happened on 9/11. Bill Binney, Former senior technical director, NSA.

This was a kangaroo trial dressed up and disguised in technical legalese to make it appear genuine. Bogus.

Too right. The truth is out and the finger pointing is about to begin. Let's hope the public (the ones with a conscience at least) are less willing, especially in the US, to be spoon fed lies in the future.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

The statements from Tony Gauci were so full of inaccuracies, inconsistencies and blatantly untrue material...

So you're saying that 'this sack of shit', Gauci, was bribed by the US government and included 'blatantly untrue material in his testimony; care to offer proof? Obviously the description of him being a sack of shit is just your opinion, so I don't expect you to provide proof of that, but if you feel up to explaining your stance it'd be interesting.